This puts in my mind that Simpsons show...Lisa has a buddy (who's as sharp as Lisa) and that girl's dad shows Lisa a way his family has fun...
What kind of sick mind must I own, for it to too soon stray in a twisty way at this point in your words, with thoughts of things no cartoon family should do?
I would submit that it isn't all that hard to avoid any particular symbol or typographical sign for short quips and quick bon mots; what is, in fact, difficult (in my opinion), is maintaining a modicum of an actual point, as my options narrow and availability of any synonym or workaround gradually grows hard to find with an always accumulating, unforgiving path of words.
Still, having said that, I must say that it's kind of fun.
I would submit that it isn't all that hard to avoid any particular symbol or typographical sign for short quips and quick bon mots; what is, in fact, difficult (in my opinion), is maintaining a modicum of an actual point, as my options narrow and availability of any synonym or workaround gradually grows hard to find with an always accumulating, unforgiving path of words.
Still, having said that, I must say that it's kind of fun.
addabox is right, this could go on a bit without using that particular glyph. But it is a mammoth task. I could post a lot, but I'm just not a linguistic robot. That glyph will show up (again, no thanks to Fangorn), but it's nothing I would worry about. Just carry on posting!
That's a good point. But what kind of worth could such a discussion possibly hold? Why would any of us want to try? Truly, it's fun. But is it worth it? What kind of payoff awaits us? Is it just masturbation? Showing off?
That's a good point. But what kind of worth could such a discussion possibly hold? Why would any of us want to try? Truly, it's fun. But is it worth it? What kind of payoff awaits us? Is it just masturbation? Showing off?
Showing off, no doubt. This board is full of folks who (obviously) jump at an opportunity to display linguistic bravado or smartly confront an artificial limitation (and I am among that crowd, I must admit).
An attraction to such a conundrum is typical of minds drawn to computational discussions and auxiliary topics, I would think.
I would call the sort by its popular (and less than admiring) alias, but alas, this monosyllabic honorific is not allowed.
Does the book merely avoid the letter "e" by replacing it phonetically, or does the author really go so far as to use correctly spelled words that don't have "e's" in them?
The next question is: is there any merit to the book aside from the assumed effort the author must have gone through to craft it? To compare, Picasso's blue period was impressive not merely for being blue.
Does the book merely avoid the letter "e" by replacing it phonetically, or does the author really go so far as to use correctly spelled words that don't have "e's" in them?
The next question is: is there any merit to the book aside from the assumed effort the author must have gone through to craft it? To compare, Picasso's blue period was impressive not merely for being blue.
Bzzt.
A Void's author avoids (har har) "e" wholly and his writing stays good.
I would call the sort by its popular (and less than admiring) alias, but alas, this monosyllabic honorific is not allowed.
Bzzzzzttt!
It looks as if it's my job to insist that all follow our glyph law. You too, and all in our group, naturally, can call out any of our failings, should any of us again slip into incautious typography, and nab us for such sins.
Sorrowfully, this discussion topic burst out owing to the fact that I had no "d" on my laptop. So, our discussions touch on words with slimy connotations such as "goo jobs" and "goo things." I am sad and full of dissatisfaction to continually command-c and command-v my way to a "d."
And the dazzling girl I am crushing on is playing hard to obtain.
Does the book merely avoid the letter "e" by replacing it phonetically, or does the author really go so far as to use correctly spelled words that don't have "e's" in them?
The next question is: is there any merit to the book aside from the assumed effort the author must have gone through to craft it? To compare, Picasso's blue period was impressive not merely for being blue.
Think of haiku and its syllabic laws. Such constraints, although artificial, will spawn many an opportunity in our minds to follow unusual paths, to go down a path or two of non-minimal labor, away from our typical inclination toward quick and lazy satisfaction. In looking for a way out of our limitations, dark and dusty nooks within our brains, going long without a visiting fancy or passing light, blink forth thoughts which would stay unthought, but for intrusions born in want of difficult solutions.
It looks as if it's my job to insist that all follow our glyph law. You too, and all in our group, naturally, can call out any of our failings, should any of us again slip into incautious typography, and nab us for such sins.
Damn! All that work and no cigar! So much for "not that hard".
I'm trying to think about how astonishingly difficult maintaining this limitation for a book's worth of writing must, must.....damn.
As far as Mr. S #1's doubts about "Void" having anything going on in addition to its primary "gimmick":
An artificial limitation is, paradoxically, a kind of opportunity, which can grant inspiration via a controlling tonality that acts as another "actor" within a work, modulating our usual approach to making things according to "having our own way" (not always a bad thing, mind you, but still) and forcing our hand towards unknown but possibly salutary paths.
Sort of an improvisational two part harmony, if you will.
Not that this kind of thing is always any good, but it is, I think, worth taking a stab at.
I won't "win" till I can stop thinking about how to do this, and stop constantly filling my mind with bits of oddly scanning, slightly stuffy sounding syntax.
This puts in my mind that Simpsons show...Lisa has a buddy (who's as sharp as Lisa) and that girl's dad shows Lisa a way his family has fun: mix up what fans call film stars to form strings of words that portray that star.
Yeah- What was the answer for "Jeremy Irons" ????? Anyone? I never figured that out.
Ah, the e is exuberantly exultantly emphatically embracing
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
This puts in my mind that Simpsons show...Lisa has a buddy (who's as sharp as Lisa) and that girl's dad shows Lisa a way his family has fun...
What kind of sick mind must I own, for it to too soon stray in a twisty way at this point in your words, with thoughts of things no cartoon family should do?
I would submit that it isn't all that hard to avoid any particular symbol or typographical sign for short quips and quick bon mots; what is, in fact, difficult (in my opinion), is maintaining a modicum of an actual point, as my options narrow and availability of any synonym or workaround gradually grows hard to find with an always accumulating, unforgiving path of words.
Still, having said that, I must say that it's kind of fun.
Originally posted by addabox
Now what is all this fuss about?
I would submit that it isn't all that hard to avoid any particular symbol or typographical sign for short quips and quick bon mots; what is, in fact, difficult (in my opinion), is maintaining a modicum of an actual point, as my options narrow and availability of any synonym or workaround gradually grows hard to find with an always accumulating, unforgiving path of words.
Still, having said that, I must say that it's kind of fun.
addabox is right, this could go on a bit without using that particular glyph. But it is a mammoth task. I could post a lot, but I'm just not a linguistic robot. That glyph will show up (again, no thanks to Fangorn), but it's nothing I would worry about. Just carry on posting!
Originally posted by midwinter
That's a good point. But what kind of worth could such a discussion possibly hold? Why would any of us want to try? Truly, it's fun. But is it worth it? What kind of payoff awaits us? Is it just masturbation? Showing off?
Showing off, no doubt. This board is full of folks who (obviously) jump at an opportunity to display linguistic bravado or smartly confront an artificial limitation (and I am among that crowd, I must admit).
An attraction to such a conundrum is typical of minds drawn to computational discussions and auxiliary topics, I would think.
I would call the sort by its popular (and less than admiring) alias, but alas, this monosyllabic honorific is not allowed.
Originally posted by addabox
I would call the sort by its popular (and less than admiring) alias, but alas, this monosyllabic honorific is not allowed.
Nyrd.
The next question is: is there any merit to the book aside from the assumed effort the author must have gone through to craft it? To compare, Picasso's blue period was impressive not merely for being blue.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Does the book merely avoid the letter "e" by replacing it phonetically, or does the author really go so far as to use correctly spelled words that don't have "e's" in them?
The next question is: is there any merit to the book aside from the assumed effort the author must have gone through to craft it? To compare, Picasso's blue period was impressive not merely for being blue.
Bzzt.
A Void's author avoids (har har) "e" wholly and his writing stays good.
Originally posted by addabox
I would call the sort by its popular (and less than admiring) alias, but alas, this monosyllabic honorific is not allowed.
Bzzzzzttt!
It looks as if it's my job to insist that all follow our glyph law. You too, and all in our group, naturally, can call out any of our failings, should any of us again slip into incautious typography, and nab us for such sins.
And the dazzling girl I am crushing on is playing hard to obtain.
So I'm doubly down in the dumps.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Does the book merely avoid the letter "e" by replacing it phonetically, or does the author really go so far as to use correctly spelled words that don't have "e's" in them?
The next question is: is there any merit to the book aside from the assumed effort the author must have gone through to craft it? To compare, Picasso's blue period was impressive not merely for being blue.
Think of haiku and its syllabic laws. Such constraints, although artificial, will spawn many an opportunity in our minds to follow unusual paths, to go down a path or two of non-minimal labor, away from our typical inclination toward quick and lazy satisfaction. In looking for a way out of our limitations, dark and dusty nooks within our brains, going long without a visiting fancy or passing light, blink forth thoughts which would stay unthought, but for intrusions born in want of difficult solutions.
Originally posted by shetline
Bzzzzzttt!
It looks as if it's my job to insist that all follow our glyph law. You too, and all in our group, naturally, can call out any of our failings, should any of us again slip into incautious typography, and nab us for such sins.
Damn! All that work and no cigar! So much for "not that hard".
I'm trying to think about how astonishingly difficult maintaining this limitation for a book's worth of writing must, must.....damn.
As far as Mr. S #1's doubts about "Void" having anything going on in addition to its primary "gimmick":
An artificial limitation is, paradoxically, a kind of opportunity, which can grant inspiration via a controlling tonality that acts as another "actor" within a work, modulating our usual approach to making things according to "having our own way" (not always a bad thing, mind you, but still) and forcing our hand towards unknown but possibly salutary paths.
Sort of an improvisational two part harmony, if you will.
Not that this kind of thing is always any good, but it is, I think, worth taking a stab at.
My hats off to you, sir!
Originally posted by dmz
Allright, allright, addabox, you win!!
No, I don't think so.
I won't "win" till I can stop thinking about how to do this, and stop constantly filling my mind with bits of oddly scanning, slightly stuffy sounding syntax.
E! Oh, god, yes yes yes E! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
There. I feel better.
Originally posted by shetline
Bzzzzzttt!
Death by article adjective!
Constrains and twists discussion
Making talking hard
Originally posted by midwinter
This puts in my mind that Simpsons show...Lisa has a buddy (who's as sharp as Lisa) and that girl's dad shows Lisa a way his family has fun: mix up what fans call film stars to form strings of words that portray that star.
Yeah- What was the answer for "Jeremy Irons" ????? Anyone? I never figured that out.
Ah, the e is exuberantly exultantly emphatically embracing